Likely my last major communication
on the issue of the US election. And this one with a very specific
focus.
On Friday, in the Jerusalem
Post, Alan Dershowitz had a major piece called, "The case for Obama's
reelection." It was so rife with distortions, I could not let it
pass. It read to me like a campaign document, not a serious analysis of
how the president has conducted himself.
Alan Dershowitz is a big name and
highly respected in many quarters -- thus likely to be believed in what he
writes. And so, I offer this as a counter to anyone who may have seen
Dershowitz's piece -- either in the JPost or in other venues where
it may have appeared -- and feels inclined to accept his word on the
issues. I will do this briefly, touching on main points he attempted
to make:
~~~~~~~~~~
Dershowitz says that Obama's "approach to foreign
policy…has improved the standing of America around
the world." That's because when Obama's predecessor, George Bush, was
president, "many of the US’s
strongest allies became alienated by America’s unilateralism," and now
Obama works closely with allies.
But in point of fact, Obama has weakened the international
standing of the US.
What Dershowitz is talking about with regard to "America's
unilateralism" is Bush's courage as a leader in making decisions that needed to
be made. America was seen across the Western world as a
leader. There was a long-standing concept of American exceptionalism that
moved to right wrongs in the world.
Obama will have none of this, and both America and the
world are worse for it. Obama has made it clear that the US should be "one
of the guys" and no more, diplomatically speaking. But what "the
guys" are doing may be ill advised if not down-right reprehensible.
A case in point. The Obama administration decided to join
the UN Human Rights Committee, which is notorious for its anti-Israel
positions. The Bush administration had shunned any participation in
this group. Obama's
argument was that membership would allow the US to have influence. This
is dubious, as most of the members of the committee are third world nations
or those which are solidly anti-US, and not about to be influenced by
America. What American membership did was confer increased legitimacy upon
the group. Anne Bayefsky of "Eye on the UN" has documented times when the
US representative on the committee failed to protest meaningfully
during proceedings that were badly biased. This is Obama being "one of the
guys.'
~~~~~~~~~~
In giving what is supposed to be a prime example of how
Obama was able "work with allies," Dershowitz speaks about how Obama, working
with others, managed to impose "the harshest possible sanctions on
Iran."
Excuse me? What nonsensical campaign rhetoric! Not just "very
harsh" but "the harshest possible."
This past week, France was talking about increasing
sanctions. This was the result
of encouragement not by Obama but by Netanyahu,
There was
a point at which Obama was actually leading from behind on sanctions and
needed to be pushed by the Senate.
Europeans leaders, who moved ahead of him in their initiative, were
not pleased with his foot-dragging.
America’s allies in the Arab world, such as
Saudi Arabia, had asked
Obama, beyond all else, to take a strong stand on Iran (which would have
included a credible military threat). They wanted him to lead the way
and were greatly disappointed by his response. He has no leverage with
them: they mock his weakness.
~~~~~~~~~~
But most startling is what Dershowitz claims has
been Obama’s response to Islamic extremism:
Obama, he says, has worked with allies to "depose Muammar
Gaddafi and to help keep the Arab spring from turning into an extremist Muslim
winter. President Obama also
succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and crippling al-Qaeda."
That he could, at this juncture, say all of this left me
aghast. Can it possibly be that he does not know that his claims diverge
seriously from the facts?
"Obama succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden." Well,
not quite. What he did was give the OK for him to be killed, but stating it
this way puts the emphasis on Obama and not on the CIA agents who planned the
operation or the Navy SEALs who executed the assassination in the
field. As I have heard it, he was actually acting on an executive
order to pursue bin Laden that had been in place before he took office, and that
he vacillated before finally giving that order.
Be that as it
may, bin Laden was taken out on his watch. And he has made the
most of this.
But the fact of the matter is that bin Laden’s death
did not "cripple" al-Qaeda in the way Obama wants people to believe it
did. This is simply a cornerstone of his campaign. A political
myth has been constructed of the resolute American president who
sent the enemy on the run: Relax, folks, things are OK under Obama and the
war on al-Qaeda is being won.
Well, not exactly. I cited Barry Rubin on this at
length recently. Al-Qaeda is connected to ideology rather than to
geography. Thus it can switch venues, for example pulling back in
Pakistan, but remain strong.
Al-Qaeda is exceedingly powerful in Mali now, and is in Iraq and in Gaza.
Most to the point here is the fact that it has cells --
including training cells -- in Libya. This is what the whole Benghazi scandal is
about! There is convincing evidence
that al-Qaeda killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.
Obama did everything he could to hide this fact because it undercut
his claim to have made the Middle East safer by
having seriously weakened al-Qaeda.
Also shocking is Dershowitz’s statement that Obama worked
with allies to "help keep the Arab spring from becoming an extremist Muslim
winter." For the "spring" has been very much a victory for Islamist
extremists.
More than
once, Obama -- who seems to prefer anti-American radicals to
despots -- helped make an Islamist ascendency possible.
He pushed out a pro-American Mubarak in Egypt
and paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood take over. And it has
been revealed that, in order to facilitate the downfall of Gadaffi, the
Americans actually provided arms to radicals in Libya.
After discussing all of this, Dershowitz says
that Obama "has strongly supported Israel’s security by helping to
construct the Iron Dome." But this is a joke. Not that there wasn't
help with the Iron Dome, but that this is not the essential
point. By helping Islamist forces garner strength in the Middle East, Obama has seriously undermined Israeli
security.
Enough said, and I end with a prayer.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment